(January 27, 2017 at 3:04 am)Firefighter01 Wrote:(January 26, 2017 at 9:28 am)phoenix31 Wrote: 600 pounds! He would have been buff, eh?
Quote:According to https://thechurchoftruth.org/the-10-commandments/
“The two tables of stone”. According to the Bava Batra* the length and width of each of the Tablets was six Tefachim, and each was three Tefachim thick – respectively roughly 20 and ten inches. That’s 4000 cubic inches of stone for each tablet! Mount Sinai displays a ring complex[4] that consists of alkaline Granites intruded into diverse rock types, including volcanics. The granites range in composition from syenogranite to alkali feldspar granite. With all that considered, let’s take the middle ground – the weight of the rock in that area then is 3500 pounds per cubic yard.
Therefore, the weight of the one (of the two) rocks that Moses allegedly carried is 300 pounds (4000/46,656 * 3500). Since Moses was carrying TWO stone tablets, the total weight of Moses’ load was 600 pounds! That’s a show stopper right there. We have no indication that Moses had super strength. This is the same old goat who needed help to even hold his arms up so God’s “children” would keep on killing some people.
“Come up in the morning… the top of the mount“. Mount Sinai is over 7400 ft high! At a 4% grade, it would take 34 miles to reach an elevation of 7400 feet. In addition, as Moses climbed higher, the the density of oxygen in the air decreases in direct proportion to increasing altitude. Moses was at least 80 (according to the bible) at this time. No one, let alone an 80 year old, is capable of walking 34 miles up to a 7500 foot elevation with stones weighing over 600 pounds “in his hand”.
Now, about the descent.
Really? After 40 days without food or water? Think about that. Forty days without food or water and yet Moses is able to walk a 34 mile route down from an elevation of 7500 feet with two tables totaling 600 pounds?
When theists can appeal to magic, none of that is a problem.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.